Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1113 (JHR)

Darbhanga House C C Ltd v. Jodhan Dhobi

2019-06-12

ANANDA SEN

body2019
JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed in Land Reference Case No.424 of 1992 corresponding to Land Acquisition Case No.5/86-87 passed by the Subordinate Judge II-cumSpecial Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh, by which the reference was allowed holding that the rates of the land should be assessed and treated as Rs.2,800/- per decimal for giving compensation to the awardees. The aforesaid judgment is a common judgment in respect of Land Reference Case Nos. 411 of 1992 to Land Reference Case No.461 of 1992. 2. Along with the present appeal, the following first appeals preferred by the appellant Central Coalfields Limited, which are analogous to the present appeal as they arise from the same common judgment passed in respect of Land Reference Case Nos.411 of 1992 to Land Reference Case No.461 of 1992, all arising from Land Acquisition Case No.5 of 1986-87, were also taken up:- First Appeal No. Respondents Land Ref. Case No. 8 of 2008 Bahamani Kamin & Ors. 422/1992 9 of 2008 Jodhan Dhobi & Ors. 425/1992 11 of 2008 Khemnath Mahto & Ors. 443/1992 12 of 2008 Kashi Nath Mahto & Ors. 442/1992 13 of 2008 Ajay Kumar Agarwal & Ors. 455/1992 14 of 2008 Mahandra Sao @ Mahendra Sao & Anr. 427/1992 15 of 2008 Krishna Deo Narayan Agarwal & Anr. 460/1992 16 of 2008 Bilaso Devi & Ors. 452/1992 17 of 2008 Tulsi Thakur & Ors. 434/1992 18 of 2008 Sabita Devi & Ors. 432/1992 19 of 2008 Amar Lal Mahto & Ors. 451/1992 20 of 2008 Niraso Devi & Ors. 433/1992 21 of 2008 Siwa Karmali & Anr. 414/1992 22 of 2008 Bhola Mahto & Ors. 447/1992 23 of 2008 Chedi Sukiyar & Anr. 420/1992 24 of 2008 Digamber Mahto & Anr. 417/1992 25 of 2008 Bal Krishna Prasad Modi & Anr. 461/1992 26 of 2008 Ayodhya Mahto & Ors. 449/1992 27 of 2008 Chedi Thakur & Anr. 448/1992 28 of 2008 Bela Rani & Anr. 457/1992 29 of 2008 Anil Kumar Agarwal & Anr. 456/1992 30 of 2008 Pushpa Devi & Ors. 458/1992 31 of 2008 Sohan Mahto & Ors. 450/1992 32 of 2008 Madan Gopal Modi & Anr. 459/1992 33 of 2008 Malu Sao & Anr. 446/1992 34 of 2008 Kusmi Devi & Ors. 445/1992 35 of 2008 Kusmi Devi & Anr. 444/1992 36 of 2008 Nand Kishor Mahto & Anr. 456/1992 30 of 2008 Pushpa Devi & Ors. 458/1992 31 of 2008 Sohan Mahto & Ors. 450/1992 32 of 2008 Madan Gopal Modi & Anr. 459/1992 33 of 2008 Malu Sao & Anr. 446/1992 34 of 2008 Kusmi Devi & Ors. 445/1992 35 of 2008 Kusmi Devi & Anr. 444/1992 36 of 2008 Nand Kishor Mahto & Anr. 428/1992 37 of 2008 Tulsi Mahto & Anr. 431/1992 38 of 2008 Kashi Nath Mahto & Ors. 430/1992 39 of 2008 Paro Devi & Ors. 453/1992 40 of 2008 Krishna Deo Narayan Agarwal & Anr. 454/1992 41 of 2008 Sarju Ghatwar & Ors. 423/1992 42 of 2008 Mangri Devi & Ors. 421/1992 43 of 2008 Paras Nath Mahto & Ors. 415/1992 44 of 2008 Ramani Kumari & Another 418/1992 45 of 2008 Lakho Devi & Anr. 436/1992 46 of 2008 Paro Devi & Anr. 437/1992 47 of 2008 Nand Kishor Mahto & Anr. 438/1992 48 of 2008 Ishaq Mian & Anr. 439/1992 49 of 2008 Smt. Tuni Devi & Ors. 440/1992 51 of 2008 Shambhu Sao Keshri & Anr. 416/1992 52 of 2008 Shambhu Sao Keshri & Anr. 413/1992 53 of 2008 Lakho Devi & Anr. 435/1992 54 of 2008 Chedi Sukiyar & Anr. 426/1992 55 of 2008 Gandhori Singh Ghatwar & Ors. 412/1992 56 of 2008 Mosemat Mangri Devi & Ors. 411/1992 57 of 2008 Shambhoo Sao Keshri @ Shambhu Sao Keshri & Anr. 419/1992 58 of 2008 Bandhan Mahto & Ors. 429/1992 3. Out of the above first appeals, in F.A. No. 8 of 2008, F.A. No.12 of 2008, F.A. No. 23 of 2008, F.A. No.26 of 2008, F.A. No.27 of 2008, F.A. 42 of 2008, F.A. No.49 of 2008, F.A. No.56 of 2008 and F.A. No.58 of 2008, on the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant, for filing appropriate application for substitution, four weeks'' time has been granted. In F.A. No. 21 of 2008, F.A. No.22 of 2008 F.A. No.30 of 2008 and F.A. 55 of 2008, orders have been passed for taking fresh steps for notice on the substituted respondents. In F.A. No.11 of 2008, case has been ordered to be listed after four weeks. In F.A. No. 21 of 2008, F.A. No.22 of 2008 F.A. No.30 of 2008 and F.A. 55 of 2008, orders have been passed for taking fresh steps for notice on the substituted respondents. In F.A. No.11 of 2008, case has been ordered to be listed after four weeks. Accordingly, the aforesaid first appeals, i.e., F.A. No.23 of 2008, F.A. No.26 of 2008, F.A. No.8 of 2008, F.A. No.49 of 2008, F.A. 42 of 2008, F.A. No.12 of 2008, F.A. No.27 of 2008, F.A. No.58 of 2008, F.A. No.56 of 2008, F.A. No.22 of 2008, F.A. No.21 of 2008, F.A. 30 of 2008, F.A. 55 of 2008 and F.A. No.11 of 2008 have been ordered to be detached from this batch of analogous cases. The remaining first appeals, i.e., F.A. No.9 of 2008, F.A. No. 13 of 2008, F.A. No.14 of 2008, F.A. No.15 of 2008, F.A. No.16 of 2008, F.A. No.17 of 2008, F.A. No.18 of 2008, F.A. No.19 of 2008, F.A. No.20 of 2008, F.A. No. 24 of 2008, F.A. No.25 of 2008, F.A. No.28 of 2008, F.A. No.29 of 2008, F.A. No.31 of 2008, F.A. No.32 of 2008, F.A. No.33 of 2008, F.A. No.34 of 2008, F.A. No.35 of 2008, F.A. No.36 of 2008, F.A. No.37 of 2008, F.A. No.38 of 2008, F.A. No.39 of 2008, F.A. No.40 of 2008, F.A. No.41 of 2008, F.A. No.43 of 2008, F.A. No.44 of 2008, F.A. No.45 of 2008, F.A. No.46 of 2008, F.A. No.47 of 2008, F.A. No.48 of 2008, F.A. No.51 of 2008, F.A. No.52 of 2008, F.A. No.53 of 2008, F.A. 54 of 2008, and F.A. No.57 of 2008 are being taken up and decided along with the present first appeal by this common judgment. FACTS IN BRIEF 4. Lands in Village Murpa, P.S. Mandu, District Hazaribagh were acquired by the State authority for the benefit of Central Coalfields Limited (C.C.L.) under the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The lands were acquired for the purposes of rehabilitation of the villagers, who have been dispossessed from their property in respect of other acquisitions. The total area of the lands acquired is 94.55 acres. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by Notification No.D.L.A. Haz39/86-2170 dated 28.07.1987. The declaration vide declaration No.B.L.A. Haz-47/89-1973 dated 07.08.1989 was published in the District Gazette. The total area of the lands acquired is 94.55 acres. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was made by Notification No.D.L.A. Haz39/86-2170 dated 28.07.1987. The declaration vide declaration No.B.L.A. Haz-47/89-1973 dated 07.08.1989 was published in the District Gazette. After enquiry, the lands were classified in 8 (eight) categories, namely, Dhan-I, Dhan II, Dhan III, Tanr I, Tanr II, Tanr III, Parti and Gairmazurwa Aam lands. Eight types of rates were fixed in respect of said categories of lands. Thereafter the award was prepared by the Collector, as per the rate determined by them. The awardees objected to the award. Thus, the matter was referred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is made clear that the objection was with regard to only 76.75 acres of land out of total acquired land of 94.55 acres. 5. After the reference, before the Land Acquisition Judge, in support of their objection, 10 witnesses were examined by the claimants. Documentary evidence were also adduced. Exhibit 1 is the certified copy of the exhibit list and Exhibit 2 and 2A are registered deed of sale. The opposite parties have also adduced evidence. There are two witnesses who deposed on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite parties also produced documents and exhibited them, which are as follows: - Ext. A Valuation Khatian prepared by the State Authority Ext. B Different list of awards with regard to an area of 76.75 acres Ext. C Sale Figure Ext. D Sale rate Exts. E to E/2 Different Deeds of Sale Ext. F Judgment and award passed in L.R. Case No.26/87 by the Subordinate Judge-cum- Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh dated 02.02.1993. 6. After discussing the evidence and going through the records, the Land Acquisition Judge in its judgment dated 14.08.2008 in respect of L.R. Case No.424 of 1992 (L.A. Case No.5 of 1986-87) and all the other analogous cases, held and assessed that there should be a flat rate of value of the land acquired irrespective of the nature of the land, which should be Rs.2800/- per decimal for giving compensation to the awardees. It was held that the awardees will also be entitled to get solatium, interest and other statutory benefits. 7. Challenging the said judgment dated 14.08.2007, the appellant Central Coalfields Limited preferred the present batch of appeals in respect of each land reference case. It was held that the awardees will also be entitled to get solatium, interest and other statutory benefits. 7. Challenging the said judgment dated 14.08.2007, the appellant Central Coalfields Limited preferred the present batch of appeals in respect of each land reference case. Submissions of the Appellant 8. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the appellant in all these batch of appeals submits that the impugned judgment is bad and cannot be sustained as there are no reasoning as to why the learned Court assessed the amount of Rs.2800/- per decimal as the flat rate of compensation of the entire land in question. He submits that the learned Court below has ignored the rate chart produced and exhibited by the respondents, which clearly suggests that the valuation of the land is on much lower side. He submits that the total area of dispute is 76.75 acres and out of the said area, admittedly, only 26 acres of land were of high quality and the rest 50.75 acres of land are low grade land. He submits that while assessing the rate of compensation, the learned Court concerned has held that the rate of the fertile land is Rs.4,800/- per decimal, which is not according to the evidence on record. He submits that without there being any material on record, the Court below has assessed Rs.2,800/- per decimal as the rate of compensation, which is beyond the record and without any basis. Mr. Amit Kumar Das also submits that the evidence of the claimants clearly suggests that the lands were not developed and even the market, the hospital and the railway halt are 1 2 kilometers away from the acquired lands. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the lands were declared as urban lands. Submissions of the Respondents 9. Counsel for the objectors/respondents in each of the cases also made their submission. Their submission is similar in all the batch of appeals. As per them, the land, which was acquired, is situated near the highway and is declared as urban land and is of great importance. They submit that the importance of the land increased due to industrialization. He submits that from the oral evidence adduced, it would be quite clear that there are hospitals near to the land and some factories also. They submit that the importance of the land increased due to industrialization. He submits that from the oral evidence adduced, it would be quite clear that there are hospitals near to the land and some factories also. It is submitted that the witnesses have stated that there are school and colleges within the vicinity, which increased the value of the lands. They submit that the sale deeds produced by the claimants, which are Exhibit 2 and 2A clearly suggests the current valuation of the lands and on that basis, the Court has assessed the value of the lands as Rs.2,800/- per decimal irrespective of the categorization. Lastly they submit that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment. Findings 10. I have heard the counsel for the appellant and all the counsel for the respondents. 12. I find that the lands involved in these batch of appeals were acquired for the purpose of Central Coalfields Limited. Notification was published on 28.07.1987 and the declaration is dated 07.08.1989. Total area acquired is 94.55 acres, out of which objection has been raised in respect of 76.75 acres of land. It is also admitted fact that the lands were classified into 8 categories, i.e., Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III, Tanr I, Tanr II, Tanr II, Parti and Gairmazuruwa Aam. There is no evidence that the nature of land has changed. The objectors, mainly challenge the rate, which was fixed by the authority in respect of each category of the land. Be it mentioned that the rates are as follows: - Dhan I Rs.1050/- per decimal Dhan II Rs.656.25 per decimal Dhan III Rs.525/- per decimal Tanr I Rs.1050/- per decimal Tanr II Rs.262.50 per decimal Tanr III Rs.65.63 per decimal Parti Rs.32.81 per decimal Gairmazurua Rs.32.81 per decimal 11. These are the rates, which were prevalent for the purpose of registration. The objectors relied upon Exhibit 2 series. These exhibits are two sale deeds. In Sale Deed No.5326, 5 decimals of land was sold at Rs.20,000/-. Similarly Sale Deed No.3891 is also in respect of 5 decimals of land and the consideration amount is Rs.21,000/-. As per these two sale deeds, the rate per decimal comes to Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4200/- per decimal. When I carefully look at these two sale deeds, I find that these sale deeds are in respect of lands of Village Kuju and not of Village Murpa. As per these two sale deeds, the rate per decimal comes to Rs.4,000/- to Rs.4200/- per decimal. When I carefully look at these two sale deeds, I find that these sale deeds are in respect of lands of Village Kuju and not of Village Murpa. From the oral evidence of the witnesses, especially, A.W.3 and A.W.1, I find that this particular land is situated 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market. A.W.1 has stated that the acquired lands are in between Kuju and Arra. This shows that the sale deeds are of different place and not of the place from where acquisition had taken place. The Court below, on the basis of these two sale deeds, had concluded that the value of good quality of land is Rs.4,000/- per decimal, which the learned Court below could not have. 12. So far as the oral evidence is concerned, I find that A.W.1 has stated that the lands were declared to be urban, but, no documents were produced in support of such statement. A.W.3 has stated that the land is 1 k.m. away from Kuju Market and the hospital is also 1 k.m. away from the acquired lands. A.W.4 has stated that the railway halt is 2 k.m. away from the acquired lands. The witnesses have also stated that the acquired land are 1 k.m. away from the highway. Evidence of these witnesses suggests that the land was not on the highway. Exhibit ''C'' series are the sale figures of land of the same village, i.e., Murpa. From the said sale figures, I find that the sale deed, which was executed on 25.09.1987 being sale deed No.11066 in respect of 7.36 acres of land fetched Rs.21,000/- only. Against the said sale value, the classification of land was shown as mixed. Similarly, the sale deed dated 20.06.1986 covering 20 decimals of land fetched Rs.21,000/-. Dhan II land of 4 decimals fetched Rs.10,000/-, which was sold vide deed dated 21.06.1986. The deed dated 19.03.1987 for 9 decimals of land fetched Rs.10,000/-. These figures, clearly suggest that there are different rates in respect of each category of land. The Court below also admitted that the rates are varying in respect of the land, but, concluded that the higher category of land is valued at Rs.4,000/- per decimal. This valuation of Rs.4,000/- is solely based on the two sale deeds produced by the objectors. The Court below also admitted that the rates are varying in respect of the land, but, concluded that the higher category of land is valued at Rs.4,000/- per decimal. This valuation of Rs.4,000/- is solely based on the two sale deeds produced by the objectors. As held earlier, these two sale deeds could not have been the basis for assessing the sale figure of the lands, which are fertile, because of the reason that these two deeds are not of the same village where the acquired lands situate. Further the area of land covered by the said sale deeds is only 5 decimals of land, which cannot be taken as basis where huge chunk of land is acquired. Further, I find that the Court below has not considered the rate chart in proper perspective. The Court below, in paragraph 15 of the judgment, while deciding the amount of compensation, has considered the market value of fertile lands to be Rs.4,000/- per decimal. The learned court also concluded that Dhan I, Dhan II, Dhan III and Tanr I lands are only 26 acres out of 76.75 acres. While doing so, has concluded that the correct market value of the entire land, i.e., 76.75 acres should be Rs.2,800/- per decimal. On what basis, this amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been arrived at has not been mentioned. Thus, I feel that the conclusion arrived by the learned Court about the market value of the land is not supported by any reasons. Further, the same is not in consonance with the documentary evidence on record. Since there is no reason as to why the amount of Rs.2,800/- per decimal has been assessed as market value of the lands, I feel that the said assessment and valuation cannot be sustained. 13. In view of the aforesaid findings, these batch of appeals need to be allowed. The judgment and the award passed by the Court below, which are impugned in each of the Land Reference Case impugned in each of the First Appeals passed by the Court below are set aside. The matter in each of the Land Reference Case in these batch of appeals is remitted back to the Court of Subordinate Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh for deciding each of the cases afresh taking into consideration all the documents, which are on record. The matter in each of the Land Reference Case in these batch of appeals is remitted back to the Court of Subordinate Judge II-cum-Special Judge, Land Acquisition, Hazaribagh for deciding each of the cases afresh taking into consideration all the documents, which are on record. It is made clear that the concerned Court will try to dispose of the Land Reference Cases within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records from this Court after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties. 14. Office is directed to remit the Lower Court Records in connection with each of the Land Reference Cases in these batch of analogous appeals through Special Messenger to the Court below. 15. Thus, all these appeals, i.e., F.A. No.10 of 2008, F.A. No.9 of 2008, F.A. 13 of 2008, F.A. No.14 of 2008, F.A. No.15 of 2008, F.A. No.16 of 2008, F.A. No.17 of 2008, F.A. No.18 of 2008, F.A. No.19 of 2008, F.A. No.20 of 2008, F.A. No. 24 of 2008, F.A. No.25 of 2008, F.A. No.28 of 2008, F.A. No.29 of 2008, F.A. No.31 of 2008, F.A. No.32 of 2008, F.A. No.33 of 2008, F.A. No.34 of 2008, F.A. No.35 of 2008, F.A. No.36 of 2008, F.A. No.37 of 2008, F.A. No.38 of 2008, F.A. No.39 of 2008, F.A. No.40 of 2008, F.A. No.41 of 2008, F.A. No.43 of 2008, F.A. No.44 of 2008, F.A. No.45 of 2008, F.A. No.46 of 2008, F.A. No.47 of 2008, F.A. No.48 of 2008, F.A. No.51 of 2008, F.A. No.52 of 2008, F.A. No.53 of 2008, F.A. 54 of 2008 and F.A. No.57 of 2008 stand allowed. I.A. No.2967 of 2008 In view of the final judgment passed in this first appeal, this interlocutory application becomes infructuous. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. I.A. No.240 of 2014 Prayer has been made to allow the respondent-applicant to withdraw the amount, which has been deposited by the appellant. In view of the final judgment passed in this case, which sets aside the impugned judgment and remands the matter back to the Court below for fresh decision, this interlocutory application is dismissed.